prayer-in-hand

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context that the content is static and non-personal (no user data consumed, same output every call). It does not describe return shape or how the pause parameter affects output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. Efficient, though the 'already published by Prayer in Hand' branding adds little operational value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with rich annotations this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should have sketched the return shape (three prompt sets) and explained minutesPerPause. Those gaps leave the agent guessing about the response and the solitary parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

One optional parameter, minutesPerPause (default 5, range 1-15), with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. It is genuinely unclear how a pause duration applies to 'static' prompts, and the description does nothing to resolve that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete resource: morning, midday and evening reflection prompts published by Prayer in Hand. The qualifiers 'static, non-personal' usefully clarify that this is a fixed-content getter despite the 'build' verb in the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_prayer_guide or search_prayer_guides, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name that this is the 'set up a daily rhythm' path versus searching or fetching a specific guide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only *published* guides are retrievable and that the slug is validated, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about error behavior for unpublished or unknown slugs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key scoping word 'published'. There is no filler and nothing to trim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-param read tool whose annotations cover safety, this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the return shape and the distinction from search_prayer_guides unstated. It is the minimum viable rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single slug parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden, and it only loosely characterizes the value as a 'validated Prayer in Hand slug'. The format constraints (pattern, maxLength) live in the schema, and the description adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond the word 'validated'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (one published guide) and scopes it to a single item, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_prayer_guides. It never names the siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: call this when you already have a slug for a published guide. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no pointer to search_prayer_guides as the way to obtain a slug, so the guidance is minimal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added content is a content disclaimer about spiritual authority, which is not behavioral disclosure — nothing about result ordering, empty-query behavior, pagination, or what the open-world search actually reaches.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is a disclaimer that occupies space without helping the agent call the tool, which keeps this from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no usage routing against its siblings, the description leaves too many open questions (what query matches, result ordering, how many results return). The disclaimer is the only extra content and it is not decision-relevant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the 'query' or 'limit' parameters, so neither the matching semantics of 'query' (full text? keyword? title only?) nor the meaning of the 1-20 'limit' cap is explained anywhere. With zero schema coverage, the description was obligated to compensate and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Discover published Prayer in Hand guides'), which is clearer than the bare tool name. It implicitly contrasts with get_prayer_guide (retrieve one known guide) versus this bulk-discovery tool, but never names or explicitly marks that distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling tools build_reflection_rhythm or get_prayer_guide, and no conditions under which this search should be preferred over fetching a specific guide. The reader must infer usage entirely from the word 'Discover'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.